Source treated as valid in one profile but not another

Question

I see a group of people from the same family with the same single "source": 

• Ancestral File," database, FamilySearch (http://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/MZ71-M2C : accessed 2014-03-13), entry for Alexander COLCLOUGH.

Some of the profiles are categorized as unsourced and some aren't. Which is correct? Thanks!

Comments

Unsourced is not an automatic designation. In other words, it has to be added or deleted during an edit of a profile.

If a profile was marked {{Unsourced}} that would stay at the top of the profile until someone removed it no matter how many sources were added.

  You can remove it if the profile is open for editing and if you are certain the source is valid.

---

The Ancestral File may indeed be the source used for those profiles, but since the Ancestral File is itself unsourced, it is not a good source.

Family Search itself says the following about the Ancestral File:

The Ancestral File has several key limitations. 

• It contains no notes or sources.
• Submitters are responsible for the accuracy of the information. FamilySearch did not check the accuracy of any submission.
• Submitter information, previously available, is now hidden for privacy reasons.
• Ancestral File contains many errors and corrections are not accepted.
• Ancestral File also contains duplicates which were not identified and merged (often due to inconsistent or scanty data).
• Unlike the new FamilySearch Tree and Pedigree Resource File (PRF), Ancestral File is static.
• As previously mentioned, information in Ancestral File is second-hand. Verify the information before accepting it.

---

Thank you George. So it sounds like profiles that only have the Ancestral File source should be marked as "unsourced". Is that correct?

---

Technically, it is a source, but it is not considered reliable. WikiTree Help has the following:

Unreliable Sources 

All family trees and genealogies, in all formats (websites, family genealogies published as books, CD-ROMs, family association newsletters, GEDCOMs, etc.) are secondary sources.

As discussed above, the most reliable secondary sources are ones that carefully cite primary sources. Conversely, the least reliable secondary sources are ones that do not reference any primary sources. This means that the information in them cannot be independently verified. It is second-hand information.

Family trees and genealogies may be valuable resources and may help you find original, reliable sources, but they are not reliable on their own. Family trees never qualify as reliable sources for pre-1700 profiles.

---

George is right to say that this is not a reliable source but it is still a source. The {{Unsourced}} template should not be used on profiles containing it. See

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources_FAQ#When_should_the_Unsourced_Research_Note_Box_be_used.3F

which says

[sources like this] are sufficiently specific for removal of the Unsourced Research Note Box.

---

Thank you for clarifying. I'm just still figuring out the sourcing policies and am planning on participating in the source-a-thon so I wanted to know how to handle situations like this. All advice is appreciated!